The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 452 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. He faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikara in S.C No.289 of 2000 on the allegation that due to some previous enmity on a misapprehension that one Raju, a toddy shop salesman, had given intimation to the police against him regarding his illicit trade in arrack, he trespassed into the toddy shop No.35/98 at about 1.45 p.m on 10.6.1998 with a dagger and inflicted injuries on the body of the said Raju with the full knowledge of consequence that the injuries he inflicted may cause death.

2. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the learned trial Judge under Sections 452 and 308 I.P.C. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in the trial court including the injured Raju and also marked Exts.P1 to P14 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C also, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and maintained a defence of total denial. He further contended that this is a false case foisted against him at the instance of one Rajan and one Vijayan. On witness was examined on the side of the accused in defence. The dress materials of the injured seized during investigation were marked as MO1 and MOII. The weapon of offence could not be seized or recovered during investigation because the accused vanished from the locality immediately after the incident and he came at the locality much after the final report was submitted by the police in court.

3. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty under Section 452 and 308 I.P.C. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 308 I.P.C and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 452 I.P.C by judgment dated 20.12.2004. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up in appeal.

4. The points for decision in this appeal are (1) whether PW3 Raju had sustained serious injuries in the alleged incident, and whether those injuries will ordinarily cause death, or whether the injuries are sufficient to cause death (2) whether those injuries were inflicted by the appellant herein with the knowledge of consequence that the injuries may cause death. (3) whether the appellant herein had committed house trespass with preparation to cause hurt on the body of PW3.

5. Of the ten witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW3 is the injured Raju. PW1 and PW2 are the Doctors examined to prove the injuries sustained by PW3. The injured was first examined in the Government Hospital, Chengannur from where he was referred for expert management to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Pws4 and 5 examined as independent witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. PW6 is the Sub Inspector, who only verified the final report and PW7 is the Sub Inspector, who registered F.I.R in this case. The case was investigated by PW10. PW9 is the licensee of the toddy shop, where the incident happened.

6. PW3 has given definite evidence consistent with the medical evidence and also the statements in Ext.P7 First Information Statement given by PW8 Rajan, regarding the incident that happened at the toddy shop, and also regarding the injuries sustained by him. PW3 was first examined by PW1 at the Government Hospital, Chengannur. This Doctor proved the Ext.P1 wound certificate, wherein, a stab wound of 5 cm length, 2 cm width and 5 cm depth on the left renal angle was noted. PW3 was later admitted in the Medical College Hospital, where he underwent expert treatment for the serious injuries. Ext.P2 is the discharge certificate issued from the Medical College Hospital by PW2, and Ext.P3 is the discharge card. These documents contain the details of the injuries and also the details of the treatment given t